Let $f:X\rightarrow Y$ be a continuous map of topological spaces and let $\mathcal{F}$ be a sheaf (say of abelian groups to fix the idea) on $Y$. Define the following rule on open sets of $X$: $$ V\mapsto f'\mathcal{F}(V):=\varinjlim_{U\supseteq f(V)}\mathcal{F}(U) $$ One may check that $f'\mathcal{F}$ gives a presheaf on $X$. Under some strong assumptions one may show that $f'\mathcal{F}$ is a sheaf on $X$. Let me give two examples

  1. If $Y$ is Hausdorff, locally compact and paracompact and $f$ is a closed embedding then $f'\mathcal{F}$ is actually a sheaf (this is not a trivial exercise, it took me a while to figure that out).

  2. A variation of 1. is: if $Y$ is Hausdorff and locally compact, and $f$ is the embedding of a compact subset $Y\subseteq X$.

I got interested in this question since it is directly related to the proper base change theorem in topology which says the following:

Proper base change theorem: Let $f:X\rightarrow Y$ be a proper map with $Y$ Hausdorff and locally compact and $X$ paracompact. Then for any sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on $Y$ and $y\in Y$ one has that \begin{align}\label{eqn} R^qf_*(\mathcal{F})_y\simeq H^q(X_y, f|_{X_y}^{-1}\mathcal{F}) \hspace{2cm} (\star) \end{align} where $X_y=f^{-1}(y)$ is the fiber above $y$.

So here are 3 questions:

Q 1 Is there a common generalization of 1. and 2. in the topological setting ?

Q 2 I would like to have a couple of (non-artificial ) examples where the presheaf $f'\mathcal{F}$ fails to be a sheaf in order to have a feeling for the possible geometrical (and/or topological) obstructions. (Note that this is closely related to examples of maps where the isomorphism $(\star)$ above fail).

Q 3 To what extend is it possible to generalize the proper base change theorem in the topological setting? (so here I have in mind of relaxing the assumptions on $f$ and may be adding additional restrictions on $Y$)

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Take $Y$ to be a point, $X$ a non-empty Hausdorff space that is not a point, and $\mathcal F$ a non-zero sheaf: then $f'\mathcal F$ is not sheaf. This would also seem to give counterexamples to your statement, unless I misunderstand something. $\endgroup$ – Angelo Aug 18 '11 at 18:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Greg Muller provides an exmaple in mathoverflow.net/questions/45212/… $\endgroup$ – Peter McNamara Aug 18 '11 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ Hi @Angelo, thanks for pointing my mistake, I know what is wrong! $\endgroup$ – Hugo Chapdelaine Aug 18 '11 at 18:59
  • $\begingroup$ I needed my map $f$ to be a closed embedding and not just proper. $\endgroup$ – Hugo Chapdelaine Aug 18 '11 at 19:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In my opinion, the pullback sheaf is easiest to understand using the etale space formulation of sheaves rather than the functorial description. If $Z\rightarrow Y$ is etale, then the pullback $X\times_Y Z\rightarrow X$ is etale over X. $\endgroup$ – Benjamin Steinberg Aug 18 '11 at 22:08

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.